Quotes of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on November 4, 2010 by Allahpundit

“The Brody File has coined a new phrase: The ‘Teavangelical Party.’ The polling from the 2010 Midterm Elections proves it.

“According to a Public Opinion Strategies poll that has assessed the Midterm Election results from Tuesday,(conducted for the Faith and Freedom Coalition) 52 percent of all people who identified themselves as part of the Tea Party movement are also conservative Evangelicals…

“Here’s the bottom line: conservative Evangelicals see fiscal issues as moral issues. Does that mean the abortion and traditional marriage issues are a thing of the past? Hardly. It just means the focus right now is on runaway spending but remember if the Tea Party is successful then that will translate into the Republicans being in power. If the GOP comes into power, they will (supposedly) promote and attempt to put in place pro-family policies, which works perfectly for social conservatives.”

***
“[Ralph] Reed echoed the common theme in this election cycle that many conservative Christians also identified themselves as Tea Party members: ‘These movements are inextricably intertwined and there is an enormous amount of overlap.’…

“‘I think that the social conservative pro-family movement is in the middle stages of a fascinating evolution,’ Reed said, explaining that he sees the movement embracing conservative fiscal issues. ‘I think what you’re going to find is more and more people of faith working on a broader range of issues, staying true to their pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-religious freedom (views,) and also recognizing that a big out-of-control government that is bankrupting future generations is not just a fiscal issue, it’s a moral issue.’”

***
“Exit polling reveals that gay and lesbian voters played a critical role in the Republican Party’s historic gains in the U.S. House on Tuesday night. According to CNN, 31% of self-identified gay voters supported Republican candidates for the U.S. House. This number is a dramatic increase from the 19% GOP House candidates won among gay voters in 2008. ‘Exit polling makes it clear gay voters played an important role in bringing conservative leadership to Congress,’ said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies. ‘It also proves something we have been saying for months now – that the Tea Party’s message of limiting government is something that appeals to many gay Americans.’…

“‘We look forward to working with the new leadership in the House to craft conservative solutions on issues like social security, taxes, healthcare and the economy, solutions that will improve the lives of all Americans – but especially gays and lesbians,’ concluded LaSalvia.”

***
“Q: Ken Buck, certainly a Tea Party candidate, had a hard time in Colorado. Despite strong financial support, he seemed to stumble over social issues like abortion… Buck didn’t manage to catch the wave because Colorado is a fairly purple state and Buck/Tea Party misread the electorate.

“A: The strength of the movement is the focus on fiscal issues, which tend to be a uniting factor among a vast majority of Americans, especially given the current economic climate. Social issues have distracted and proven divisive in close races – like Ken Buck in Colorado.”

***
“In the 2010 contest for House seats, Republicans won stronger support from people in the major religious groups — and even the unaffiliated who usually vote Democratic, an analysis of exit polls show…

“These results are interesting because the 2010 election didn’t focus on religious or social issues like same-sex marriage and ‘yet the pattern of the religion vote looks like 2004′ when those issues were prominent, said John C. Green, political science professor at the University of Akron and scholar on the influence of religion in politics.

“‘I think that this shows, if nothing else, that religious affiliation is a very important part of the structure of our politics, and even when [faith and social issues] aren’t on the front burner … it nonetheless has an influence on how people vote,’ he said.”

***
“Last week’s New York Times/CBS News poll found that for the first time since 1982, when polling began, the GOP has the edge among women. For the most part, the bulk of these voters aren’t moving to the GOP so much as they are fleeing the Democrats. That’s how it works in a two-party system; one side’s loss is the other side’s gain.

“And that is why the Republicans are going to start turning on each other like drag queens at a wig sale. It’s the nature of politics that when you’re out of power, everyone can agree on what the top priority should be: Get back in power. But, the only way to get back in power is to attract people who might not share all of your goals or your passion. Majority coalitions by definition have diverse groups within them. FDR’s coalition had everybody from Klansmen to blacks, socialists to industrialists. The new GOP coalition isn’t nearly so exotic, but it does have its internal contradictions…

“More important than the intraconservative fights is the fact that the moderates, independents, women and young people fleeing the Obama coalition to make up a new Republican majority aren’t much interested in lending their numerical and political weight to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s agenda to make Obama a ‘one-term president.’ Much like the Tea Partiers, they would like to see the GOP accomplish something substantive over the next two years. The arguing begins the second the GOP starts acting on that substance.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Oh no! The theocrats are coming!

(allahpundit hides under bed).

cs89 on November 4, 2010 at 10:34 PM

I don’t get it. Just because some teapartiers HAPPEN to be religious or evangelicals DOES NOT mean that is the reason they voted the way they did.

Ian on November 4, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Damn it…

The Republican party would be so much more successful if we could just become a party solely concerned with fiscal issues.

doodleduh on November 4, 2010 at 10:37 PM

too bad for the dems the GOp is still pretty much out of power. they can only stop things now they can not pass anything. So sadly for the dems the big tent will survuve until at least 2012.

The really nice thing about a liberty, small government approach is it takes the issues that divide people off the table and passes those to the states. So if the nimwits in the elites figure that out they will have another wave election in 2012. If instead they seek to divide and retain the most power they are able 9which seems like the course they want to go) they will again become a regional party quickly.

unseen on November 4, 2010 at 10:39 PM

If the Republicans screw up again, there will be “Tea Party” box on the ballots, for 2012. It may have a different name, but it will have the same goals and platform.

Star20 on November 4, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Why else would the remaining 5 Democrats in Congress keep Nancy Pelosi when they are hobbling around looking like they just lost a fight with the Grim Reaper?? It’s not for “benefits” or for the “People”….dude, it’s for GAY issues and ABORTION. There are no other answers that would compel those Dems to keep her because she is kryptonite. If she stays on as Dem Minority Leader, it is to continue to be the nations second leading baby killer.

say it ain’t so.

ted c on November 4, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Here’s the bottom line: conservative Evangelicals see fiscal issues as moral issues.

I’d hope that no mater what group you claim to be in, fiscal issues are at least related to moral issues.

Isn’t it immoral to steal money?

MeatHeadinCA on November 4, 2010 at 10:41 PM

“And that is why the Republicans are going to start turning on each other like drag queens at a wig sale.

Personal experience Jonah?

d1carter on November 4, 2010 at 10:42 PM

say it ain’t so.

ted c on November 4, 2010 at 10:40 PM

So.

Electrongod on November 4, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Once again, religion becomes the fear tactic of the left. Same old meme: If you allow these evangelical loons to have legislative power, the’ll use it to subjugate everyone else’s theological perspectives, and besides, ethical and moral behavior is contagious. It’s like cooties.

anXdem on November 4, 2010 at 10:44 PM

“Here’s the bottom line: conservative Evangelicals see fiscal issues as moral issues. Does that mean the abortion and traditional marriage issues are a thing of the past? Hardly. It just means the focus right now is on runaway spending but remember if the Tea Party is successful then that will translate into the Republicans being in power. If the GOP comes into power, they will (supposedly) promote and attempt to put in place pro-family policies, which works perfectly for social conservatives.”

Which is exactly the reason fiscal-cons are telling socons to shut their yaps when it comes to social issues not related to the economy.

Talking about abortion and the like are meaningless distractions until the Republicans gain power and quietly work the legislative levers of power and then appoint judges that will make the difference.

Fist pumping about social issues turns off independents.

Shut up, get the fiscal house in order and we will win……and then social issues like abortion will follow.

rickyricardo on November 4, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Oops: The’ll should be they’ll

anXdem on November 4, 2010 at 10:46 PM

AllahP, are you intentionally stirring the pot :)

Seriously, it makes sense that a large portion of gays would be down with a limited government agenda.

I’m a practicing Catholic, but to my religious bretheren that with respect to “social issues” they have to learn to “hate the sin, but love the sinner” and “live and let live”. As long as lifestyles aren’t being subsdized, or identity politics being played, they should be content to have allies in the fight on spending, intrusive government, and over-regulation.

And to McConnell and the leadership? We get it, we hope Obama’s agenda fails too. He’s been successfully made a boogeyman, OK? Don’t alienate the recent converts by criticizing their former cult leader, instead, show them the money!

And by that I mean roll back the spending.

I’m gonna start calling you Allah the spoon, since you like stirring things up!

My Regards
Bob

RocketmanBob on November 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM

My country and my country folks first, then my religion.
Difficult to have my religion without my free country.

Electrongod on November 4, 2010 at 10:48 PM

I’m not interested in making Obama a one-term President … why in hell did McConnell say that anyway? Oh yeah that’s right – I shouldn’t question his “deep” wisdom – I’m one of the unwashed imbeciles.

Personally – I think if you take the House (which we did) and we fight to roll back ObamaCare and the rest of this Socialist agenda – then Obama becomes a one-term President as a welcomed by-product of that effort. They shouldn’t make it personal though – just doing the work of conservatism will highlight Obama’s weaknesses enough for voters to recognize them.

Whatever we do – please – let’s not impeach Obama – nor fatally wound him politically within his own party. If he goes down – let the Dims eliminate him and light off an intra-party war between their ethnic bases.

I think we want to run against him in 2012 – not Hillary or someone else. Unless it’s Howard Dean – we’d beat Dean …

YEEEEEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

HondaV65 on November 4, 2010 at 10:50 PM

Isn’t it immoral to steal money?

MeatHeadinCA on November 4, 2010 at 10:41 PM

This Atheist says yes!

OldEnglish on November 4, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Once again, religion becomes the fear tactic of the left. Same old meme: If you allow these evangelical loons to have legislative power, the’ll use it to subjugate everyone else’s theological perspectives, and besides, ethical and moral behavior is contagious. It’s like cooties.

anXdem on November 4, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Yes, and once again AP is stirring the pot.

I have yet to personally meet an evangelical who is a big government advocate.

GWB and Huck are anamolies.

One thing that has been forgotten is that when GWB did his faith-based initiatives I believe those who went with it were all from the liberal theological camp. Theological conservatives had no desire to get into something with the government.

INC on November 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM

UGHHHHH

THERE IS SUCH A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THIS:

PUSH LOCAL CONTROL, AND LETS STATES DECIDE ON THEIR OWN SOCIAL ISSUES! IT WORKS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT…

Seriously, I could write the GOP platform in about 5 minutes

1. Decrease size of federal government (Cut whole depts!)
2. Decrease spending of federal government (NPR, etc.)
3. Pay off debt sooner than later
4. Reform SS/Medicare (but make it long term, so it doesnt affect anyone that’s over 18 today)
5. Lowest income taxes possible for business & people
6. Eliminate any other taxes past income (capgains, estate)
7. State control/decision of any social issues (abortion, gays, drugs)
8. Secure the border by building a freaking wall with Mexico and quietly deporting every Aunt Zuni you can find; no amnesty for anyone, ever without combat military service
9. 50% Isolationist on defense, 50% WRATHFUL HELLFIRE on defense. aka don’t overextend ourselves but if we are at war salt the earth and dresden whatever you can to save AMERICAN lives
10. Make every congressional bill prove its constitutionality in the first article
11. Deregulate (entirely) health care. Let walmart have a national health insurance plan if they want
12. “All the above” energy plan, including oil drilling anywhere
13. Stand up to fundamentalist islam. If they bomb us, see point 9b.
14. GET OFF MY LAWN!

Any takers????

picklesgap on November 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM

picklesgap on November 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM

I think that point 14, fully extrapolated, covers everything.

OldEnglish on November 4, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Shut up and go away nut bags. We all know how to behave ourselves without goofball nutwagon egomaniacs telling us how to run our lives. These preachy types need to get a grip as they weren’t elected to damned thing!!!

sonnyspats1 on November 4, 2010 at 11:02 PM

picklesgap on November 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM

I like it.

Though, I’m not sure if I care if we quietly deport Auntie. Just deport.

9) is a great point. As Ann Coulter would say, we can’t be the party/movement of perpetual war.

I also agree with OldEnglish is right. 14 wraps it all up quite nicely.

MeatHeadinCA on November 4, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Yes, and once again AP is stirring the pot.

I have yet to personally meet an evangelical who is a big government advocate.

GWB and Huck are anamolies.

INC on November 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Agreed. Most new and veteran political leaders have enough to do right now with federal spending reductions, defunding Barrycare, maintaining the Bush tax cuts, figuring out what to do with the collapsing Pakistan government that the U.S. has invested billions to preserve, fighting Barry to enforce existing immigration laws, et al. They won’t have time to focus on social issues, but naturally, the left will.

anXdem on November 4, 2010 at 11:05 PM

I’m a practicing Catholic, but to my religious bretheren that with respect to “social issues” they have to learn to “hate the sin, but love the sinner” and “live and let live”. As long as lifestyles aren’t being subsdized, or identity politics being played, they should be content to have allies in the fight on spending, intrusive government, and over-regulation.

RocketmanBob on November 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM

I agree.

And another thing I wish my religious brothers and sisters would realize is that while we may belong to different religions with different doctrines, we share the same values. The best example of this is Prop 8 where people of all religions came together to uphold traditional marriage.

Remember, we’re united on values. The moment conservatives start attacking one another because they belong to a different religion, that’s when we start losing as a people, as a party and as a nation.

Conservative Samizdat on November 4, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Wow. Dead silence for 11 minutes. a referendum on Allah?

Electrongod on November 4, 2010 at 11:17 PM

According to CNN, 31% of self-identified gay voters supported Republican candidates for the U.S. House. This number is a dramatic increase from the 19% GOP House candidates won among gay voters in 2008.

And this is evidence that the Tea Party is not some kind of Hell and Brimstone evangelical movement or they would not have been able to drag the dense Republican Establishment over the finish line, let alone in such grand fashion.

Luka on November 4, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Once again, religion becomes the fear tactic of the left. Same old meme: If you allow these evangelical loons to have legislative power, the’ll use it to subjugate everyone else’s theological perspectives, and besides, ethical and moral behavior is contagious. It’s like cooties.

anXdem on November 4, 2010 at 10:44 PM

“If you threw cold water on a liberal in the middle of the night, he’d jerk awake denouncing the ‘religious right’.” –Ann Coulter, Slander

inviolet on November 4, 2010 at 11:23 PM

I like how others are now trying to attach themselves to the Tea Party. Look for more of this in the next couple of years.

ramrants on November 4, 2010 at 11:26 PM

14. GET OFF MY LAWN!

Any takers????

picklesgap on November 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM

15. KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY HAPPY MEAL!

Luka on November 4, 2010 at 11:26 PM

Mr. AllahPundit, you should know that I’ve talked to Sheepdogs, Mormons, Calvinists, Catholics, Pentecostals, Jews, Atheists, Libertarians and even RINOs, and there IS at least ONE thing that we all agree on. Tell him collie.

My collie says:

If we ever get our paws on you, you’re going to get BOTH a wedgy and a swirly for posting divisive comment baiting crap like this.

There. Happy now?

CyberCipher on November 4, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Any takers????

picklesgap on November 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM

make a push to decriminalize society. you do not irregardless to popular opinion need a law for everything.

like embellzzement. Just charge the guy for stealing. You don’t need an entire chapter of a new law for stealing if its done in an office or on the street.

Make simple laws that everyone understands so everyone can follow them. Do not use the legal system as your get out of jail card if you have money to hire the best….

unseen on November 4, 2010 at 11:28 PM

UGHHHHH

THERE IS SUCH A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THIS:

PUSH LOCAL CONTROL, AND LETS STATES DECIDE ON THEIR OWN SOCIAL ISSUES! IT WORKS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT…

Seriously, I could write the GOP platform in about 5 minutes

1. Decrease size of federal government (Cut whole depts!)
2. Decrease spending of federal government (NPR, etc.)
3. Pay off debt sooner than later
4. Reform SS/Medicare (but make it long term, so it doesnt affect anyone that’s over 18 today)
5. Lowest income taxes possible for business & people
6. Eliminate any other taxes past income (capgains, estate)
7. State control/decision of any social issues (abortion, gays, drugs)
8. Secure the border by building a freaking wall with Mexico and quietly deporting every Aunt Zuni you can find; no amnesty for anyone, ever without combat military service
9. 50% Isolationist on defense, 50% WRATHFUL HELLFIRE on defense. aka don’t overextend ourselves but if we are at war salt the earth and dresden whatever you can to save AMERICAN lives
10. Make every congressional bill prove its constitutionality in the first article
11. Deregulate (entirely) health care. Let walmart have a national health insurance plan if they want
12. “All the above” energy plan, including oil drilling anywhere
13. Stand up to fundamentalist islam. If they bomb us, see point 9b.
14. GET OFF MY LAWN!

Any takers????

picklesgap on November 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Gonna repost this on Facebook to one of my nuttier evangelical conservative friends…..real big annoying Bible-thumping kinda guy.

I mean I love the guy (and I’m certain his girlfriend does too) but good Lord our Nation is one thing our Souls are another-do NOT conflate the two

SgtSVJones on November 4, 2010 at 11:29 PM

I’m not religious, I just love the Lord

Vntnrse on November 4, 2010 at 11:29 PM

I would like to think of myself as one of the original 1% of Teh Gays that pioneered unchartered territory in the GOP!!! *

*(at least on HotAir)

SouthernGent on November 4, 2010 at 11:29 PM

OT:

Had been unemployed since May, got a job last month. Have gotten 2 more job offers this week (companies I applied with months ago) I’m in a good mood :-)

El_Terrible on November 4, 2010 at 11:34 PM

In the 2010 contest for House seats, Republicans won stronger support from people in the major religious groups

I’m sorry…is this something new? Cheryl Wetzstein is just now discovering religious people tend to vote Republican?

ramrants on November 4, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Favorite Bible verse is about how the idle rich shall not eat. Taxes are a good way to keep idle rich from eating.

PrezHussein on November 4, 2010 at 11:35 PM

I jumped right to the end so sorry if this has already been said. The only reason to bring religion into this (Teavangelical) is to help destroy the movement. They have not been able to stop it any other way so they fall back to their old reliable, blame religion. They know the MSM and hard left will get all riled up about it and probably the young people as well. I predict it will fail!

bluemarlin on November 4, 2010 at 11:36 PM

AP,

dude?

TGSG

TGSG on November 4, 2010 at 11:39 PM

I jumped right to the end so sorry if this has already been said. The only reason to bring religion into this (Teavangelical) is to help destroy the movement. They have not been able to stop it any other way so they fall back to their old reliable, blame religion. They know the MSM and hard left will get all riled up about it and probably the young people as well. I predict it will fail!

bluemarlin on November 4, 2010 at 11:36 PM

No kidding. The left desperately wants to resurrect the “religious right” boogeyman that has helped them scare liberals, libertarians, and especially young voters to the polls to vote for Democrats. Those of us who have fallen for that line in the past aren’t buying it anymore.

Caiwyn on November 4, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Social Conservatives are beginning to understand that there are no “Social” issues without a price tag.

If the FEDERAL government only funds things enumerated in the constitution, then Social Conservatives are fine.

It is when the Federal government give its tacit support for a “thing” by funding it, that there is a problem.

This includes tax incentives and regulations forcing businesses to offer products that mandate social imperatives. Don’t force all insurance policies to cover abortions and sex changes, for example. But if you want to buy a rider to cover these and the company wants to sell it to you, great. Again, don’t make them pay for it.

barnone on November 4, 2010 at 11:46 PM

I would like to think of myself as one of the original 1% of Teh Gays that pioneered unchartered territory in the GOP!!! *

*(at least on HotAir)

SouthernGent on November 4, 2010 at 11:29 PM

You are and you did. *kisses*

RushBaby on November 4, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Drag queens at a wig sale? Jonah, is there something you want to tell us?

John the Libertarian on November 4, 2010 at 11:57 PM

I’m in a good mood :-)

El_Terrible on November 4, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Good on ya, mate! GOOD LUCK!

John the Libertarian on November 4, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Here’s the bottom line: conservative Evangelicals see fiscal issues as moral issues.
I’d hope that no mater what group you claim to be in, fiscal issues are at least related to moral issues.

Isn’t it immoral to steal money?

MeatHeadinCA on November 4, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Not if you’re a LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE… It is good and right to redistribute wealth, as current POTUS is doing…

Khun Joe on November 4, 2010 at 11:59 PM

No kidding. The left desperately wants to resurrect the “religious right” boogeyman that has helped them scare liberals, libertarians, and especially young voters to the polls to vote for Democrats. Those of us who have fallen for that line in the past aren’t buying it anymore.

Caiwyn on November 4, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Yeah, that boogeyman died for me a long time back as well. I understand why they are trying it,desperate and an old reliable, I still predict it fails. I bring up the attack on Christianity at work at different times and so many people are on the same page with me. It is not like I am a big Church attendee either but I can see it everyday under attack, it makes me mad.

bluemarlin on November 5, 2010 at 12:00 AM

I am getting so tired of these debates. The Tea Party consists of:

Evangelical Christians
Atheists
Agnostics
Aqua Buddhists
etc

So what? I myself is a social conservative, but I share the common Tea Party goal of a limited government. Once we get into the usual “SoCons should shut up!, etc” you just alienate good people who share your goals. We need everyone to stick together if we are going to defeat socialism.

Norwegian on November 5, 2010 at 12:02 AM

As November 2nd approached, the Teavangelical Consulted the Book of Armaments.

They prayed: And the Lord spake, saying, “First shalt thou vote out the Unholy Democrats. Then shalt thou count the votes, no more, no less. 239 shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be 239.

Once the number 239, being the 239 number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Ballot of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.

Kini on November 5, 2010 at 12:06 AM

I’m sorry…is this something new? Cheryl Wetzstein is just now discovering religious people tend to vote Republican?

ramrants

There it is. Did they expect them to vote for the liberal platform? Srsly.

Affirming the Consequent

* Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
o Example:

Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Billy is coughing. Therefore, Billy has the flu.
Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.
Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. dew).

Lather.Rinse.Repeat.

ace tomato on November 5, 2010 at 12:19 AM

A: The strength of the movement is the focus on fiscal issues, which tend to be a uniting factor among a vast majority of Americans, especially given the current economic climate. Social issues have distracted and proven divisive in close races – like Ken Buck in Colorado.”

So lets see. It was the candidate’s ideology, Hispanics, the candidates character and now Social issues which cost Buck the race. This still doesn’t explain why 10% of CO Republicans voted FOR Bennet while 0% of Dems voted for Buck according to exit polls. Republicans were 28% of the 1.75 millions votes cast for senator in CO. 10% of that 28% is around 50,000 votes. If 2 or 3 percent more of Rs had voted for Buck he would have won. Hell if the 10% of republicans had just been decent enough to NOT vote for the Liberal Democrat he would have won easily.

Ken Buck is not a Senator today because 10% of Colorado Republicans are back stabbing RINO idiots. THAT is the only reason he lost.

Rocks on November 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Aqua Buddhists

Norwegian on November 5, 2010 at 12:02 AM

Aqua Buddhist, singular. We don’t know if Rand’s buddy is a Tea party supporter.

Rocks on November 5, 2010 at 12:21 AM

Rocks on November 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM

The same is true in Delaware as well. I believe that is why the RINO brigade will say Palin won’t win. They will simply vote for Bammy just as in 2008. I hope Sarah can pull enough of other groups to muster a win.

promachus on November 5, 2010 at 12:32 AM

Maybe the tea partiers should have returned the favor and not voted for Kirk.

promachus on November 5, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Maybe the tea partiers should have returned the favor and not voted for Kirk.

promachus on November 5, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Hell. At least that would have only cost Kirk those votes. Actually voting for Bennet doubled the effect.

Rocks on November 5, 2010 at 12:36 AM

the left and their buds in the press have had the genius to use social issues as a wedge issue distracting the many people from the real issues of governance

meanwhile GM gets 42B dollars of tax breaks for any future profits…up to 20 years.

r keller on November 5, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Moderates will just have to decide which is more important, fiscal issues or social issues. If gay marriage is more important to moderates than fiscal responsibility then I guess they’ll make that choice.

Rose on November 5, 2010 at 1:18 AM

Don’t fear Christians, fear God.

Mojave Mark on November 5, 2010 at 1:36 AM

Don’t fear Christians, fear God Socialists.

Mojave Mark on November 5, 2010 at 1:36 AM

FIFY, we already fear God

Kini on November 5, 2010 at 2:22 AM

2 days ago “The Won” Lost and for 2 days AP has seen fit to post pot stirring QOTD swill. No wonder MM sold…

Gohawgs on November 5, 2010 at 2:27 AM

I know so many people who define their conservatism very thinly and only inside the small picture point of view.

Some only see conservatism as religion and their morals are so shallow you wonder what they would be like if they weren’t church goers, many though only see themselves as conservatives because they’re clinch fisted with their own money, but have little worry about spending other peoples to their benefit (who deserve to give it up of course), few if any of these people think about, the good of the country, or see the big picture as important, principles are great, when they can get a good deal, and government spending them into the poor house is a very big deal. When government goes nuts like it has recently, to hell with everything else.

The percentage of people who are moral with or without a literal guide, see our founders and their genius as the necessary big picture that provides the opportunity for all of the rest to exist with the freedom to build it yourself, better, just isn’t that large and the vast majority of Americans see religion as good but when you talk like everybody should be religious, should be straight or should give up control, you lose votes.

Conservative doesn’t just mean fiscally lean, it also means judgmentally lean too.

If government is supposed have limited access to your money, then by moral necessity, government is supposed to have limited intrusion into your personal life too.

Got a personal belief? Cool. Don’t wear it as a political mantel.

Speakup on November 5, 2010 at 2:37 AM

Gohawgs on November 5, 2010 at 2:27 AM

There’s ton of blogs out there, you don’t have to just dump on this one.

Speakup on November 5, 2010 at 2:45 AM

Eeyore is back.

hillbillyjim on November 5, 2010 at 2:46 AM

But I like here, Roger

Gohawgs on November 5, 2010 at 2:49 AM

Speakup on November 5, 2010 at 2:37 AM

Very well put. I think there a lot of people around here that share your views.

Growing up during the years of “Compassionate Conservatism” was interesting. Conservatism wasn’t very well defined (at least to me). I’ve done a lot of soul searching, and pretty much exactly what you said is what I’ve come to the conclusion the American Conservative movement is all about. There’s something very unique about it. Fiscal responsibility. Individualism. Limited government. Minimal involvement in the lives of others. Of course we sometimes lose track of this, but we’re coming back around.

During the soul searching, the question, “Why have government?” came up. No, not an anarchist, but sometimes we don’t ask ourselves this simple question. What is the purpose of government? Sometimes we go from government’s purpose as societies organized way of bringing about justice (*got to be careful by what we mean here) and protecting the citizens from physical harm. Unfortunately, government now serves a different purpose. The law and order aspect isn’t enforced as it should be and instead government is looked to as a social safety net from the the bad things that will inevitably happen.

MeatHeadinCA on November 5, 2010 at 2:50 AM

2 days ago “The Won” Lost and for 2 days AP has seen fit to post pot stirring QOTD swill. No wonder MM sold…

Gohawgs on November 5, 2010 at 2:27 AM

*sigh

Well, we’ll move on with or without him/it/them. I do miss MM, though.

MeatHeadinCA on November 5, 2010 at 2:52 AM

Why is it that whenever the Republicans succeed at something, the evangelicals come out of the woodwork and attempt to apply their brand to the victory? This actually does the party more harm than good. Conservatives come in every religious stripe and the Christian evangelicals tend to alienate everybody but their own.

Maybe they should have their own party instead of trying to claim ownership of mine.

crosspatch on November 5, 2010 at 3:03 AM

Why is it that whenever the Republicans succeed at something, the evangelicals come out of the woodwork and attempt to apply their brand to the victory? This actually does the party more harm than good. Conservatives come in every religious stripe and the Christian evangelicals tend to alienate everybody but their own.

Maybe they should have their own party instead of trying to claim ownership of mine.

crosspatch on November 5, 2010 at 3:03 AM

I don’t know who “they” is. I’ve talked to a bunch of evangelicals that have never claimed ownership of the Tea Party.

Careful, perhaps certain people are trying to cause problems. You might find that many evangelicals, Christians (of other denoms), &c aren’t as aggressive as some would paint them.

I’d be more concerned with the GOP Est trying to co-opt the movement.

MeatHeadinCA on November 5, 2010 at 3:07 AM

I’d be more concerned with the GOP Est trying to co-opt the movement.

MeatHeadinCA on November 5, 2010 at 3:07 AM

True…And, it’s in the dems/MSM interest to “marry” the TEA party to evangelicals…

Gohawgs on November 5, 2010 at 3:22 AM

True…And, it’s in the dems/MSM interest to “marry” the TEA party to evangelicals…

Gohawgs on November 5, 2010 at 3:22 AM

You’re absolutely right.

Tea Partiers are religious fanatics: check

Tea Partiers are Extremists: check

Tea Partiers want to destroy government: check

Tea Partiers are insane/irrational: check

Tea Partiers are greedy/uncaring: check

Tea Partiers are racists: check

Tea Partiers are neo-Confederates: check

Tea Partiers are Nazis: check

Tea Partiers are welfare recipients: check

I remember when the Religious Right was despised… this is worse. EVERYTHING is being thrown at the TP. We can disagree about things, but let’s be careful throwing around the labels the current establishment throws our way.

MeatHeadinCA on November 5, 2010 at 3:28 AM

BTW, for people that are concerned or not concerned about some religious co-opting of the Tea Party, I’d suggest looking at the successes and failures the Religious Right had when they worked with Reagan in the 1980′s.

Whether it was good or bad, there were certain letdowns for them w/ Reagan (in more recent history, think Bush for fiscal conservatives).

They also had success, though. They were a movement the GOP had to work with.

MeatHeadinCA on November 5, 2010 at 3:31 AM

Everything will be thrown at anyone daring to challenge democratic rule.

The media, the liberal establishment all desperately want to destroy their opposition “by any means necessary”.
They really are a despicable bunch of people.

Both establishments are declaring war on Palin. But she has the right mentality to fight them.

FWIW, it really doesn’t matter what the MSM says about anything anymore. Who believes them?
People listen and see candidates and vote that way and based on how they are doing.

All the other bs is just BS.
I wouldn’t want to be in the dem party today. They all must be in severe panic mode.
So what do they do? Only thing they can, LASH OUT at people they hate.

SSDD, people.
If you let the media’s treatment of the TP bother you, you’re going to be REAL mad over the next few years.

B Man on November 5, 2010 at 3:35 AM

Speaking of saying anything and despicable people…

Gohawgs on November 5, 2010 at 4:11 AM

I agree, and as an Evangie myself, I was so relieved not to hear this one being about GaY MaRrIaGe again (ie Prop 8)… the subject has exhausted us all. No abortion battles or even stem cell talk. It was a huge relief to stay on topic and show the Dems to be wasteful and arrogant, and let their immorality go down with them as a fringe benefit.

leftnomore on November 5, 2010 at 5:00 AM

gov perry is doing an outstanding job on morning joe…

cmsinaz on November 5, 2010 at 7:16 AM

After Tuesday, Democrats, incredibly, hold a majority of the congressional delegation in only three states—Iowa, New Mexico, and Vermont—that don’t directly touch an ocean. Republicans similarly routed Democrats in gubernatorial races across the Midwest and the border states, from Ohio and Tennessee to Wisconsin and Iowa.http://nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/a-heartland-headache-for-dems-20101104

It is really looking like the Democrats that have big, big problems.

ted c on November 5, 2010 at 7:17 AM

Fault lines?

Looks more like a powerful coalition to me.

forest on November 5, 2010 at 7:45 AM

So let me get this straight. The “Rally to Restore Sanity” was NONpartisan, even though 99% of attendees vote Democrat.

But the Tea Party is a total theocracy…because 52% are evangelical Christians.

Smells like liberal math to me.

Grace_is_sufficient on November 5, 2010 at 7:50 AM

picklesgap on November 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Pick,
Watch out for the list thing. I posted a list a Lady drew up and was promptly pronounced a Nazi. The left hate common sense lists and the left is very easy to drive nuts.
One morsel and off they go.
Oklahoma lit the fuse with the renunciation of sharia law.
Here we go.

Col.John Wm. Reed on November 5, 2010 at 7:52 AM

Buck in CO lost by a smidge, and from everything I read, Bennett was a good Dem candidate in that he’s likeable. Buck is much less of a traditional politician, by nature.

But I don’t think that he was a bad candidate to run at all. He simply was like a lot of first-time politicians on the national scene. They are going to flub.

AnninCA on November 5, 2010 at 8:01 AM

All of the Gays that I know voted Repub, and trust me it’s a sizable number…I work in the fashion and retail industry. They had all voted for Obama , so why did they change? Nothing to do with what the Repubs offered in the way of fiscal issues at all. They were simply disgusted with Obama’s supposed hypocrisy on Gay issues…DADT and marriage. As they all said, at least they know where the Repubs stand on the issues and they trust that more than, to quote one…”the phoney Liberalism of the Democrats.”

Deanna on November 5, 2010 at 8:10 AM

More important than the intraconservative fights is the fact that the moderates, independents, women and young people fleeing the Obama coalition to make up a new Republican majority aren’t much interested in lending their numerical and political weight to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s agenda to make Obama a ‘one-term president.

Do you have polling data on that too? I think you’re just making this one up. While I agree this doesn’t need to be priority number one I do believe that as long as O is in the WH we will be spending to much precious time watching what he is trying to sneak through when were not looking, or what he does via executive power. I think “these people” would have no problem with a movement that got him thrown out in one term. All we need to do is continue to let the Sun shine on his policies. After all they did vote against “HIM”.

And yes, we all know your an Atheist.

New Patriot on November 5, 2010 at 8:10 AM

After Tuesday, Democrats, incredibly, hold a majority of the congressional delegation in only three states—Iowa, New Mexico, and Vermont—that don’t directly touch an ocean. Republicans similarly routed Democrats in gubernatorial races across the Midwest and the border states, from Ohio and Tennessee to Wisconsin and Iowa.http://nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/a-heartland-headache-for-dems-20101104

It is really looking like the Democrats that have big, big problems.

ted c on November 5, 2010 at 7:17 AM

Lord willing, I’ll be packing up and leaving CA for my home state of MO soon. CA is giving me big, big problems.

pugwriter on November 5, 2010 at 8:12 AM

It is really looking like the Democrats that have big, big problems.

ted c on November 5, 2010 at 7:17 AM

They do. They got a chance to pass a progressive agenda over the last two years. The country isn’t progressive, but they did it anyway.

It’s interesting that the reaction took hold pretty much everywhere except out west, and I think that says more about the electorate out there than it does about the nature of the Republican candidates.

forest on November 5, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Why is it that whenever the Republicans succeed at something, the evangelicals come out of the woodwork and attempt to apply their brand to the victory? This actually does the party more harm than good. Conservatives come in every religious stripe and the Christian evangelicals tend to alienate everybody but their own.

Maybe they should have their own party instead of trying to claim ownership of mine.

crosspatch on November 5, 2010 at 3:03 AM

Wow, you bought this hook, line, and sinker. This is purely opinion, not fact. Evangelicals have been a part of “our”, not “your” party for a long time and I don’t see them trying to coop anything. Do you remember them being a prominent voice in this election touting social issues? I don’t think so. That said they certainly have a right to their opinions and views the same as the rest of us. This is just Allah once again injecting something to get people to increase his comment count. He is really good at that.

New Patriot on November 5, 2010 at 8:23 AM

2 days ago “The Won” Lost and for 2 days AP has seen fit to post pot stirring QOTD swill. No wonder MM sold…

Gohawgs on November 5, 2010 at 2:27 AM

*sigh

Well, we’ll move on with or without him/it/them. I do miss MM, though.

MeatHeadinCA on November 5, 2010 at 2:52 AM

I agree, just wish he would spend more time on his content than trying to increase comment count. I enjoyed his work a lot more under MM’s leadership.

New Patriot on November 5, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Damn it…

The Republican party would be so much more successful soul-less if we could just become a party solely concerned with fiscal issues.

doodleduh on November 4, 2010 at 10:37 PM

there, fixed it.

Osis on November 5, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Personal observation and nothing more than that:

People who are squishy on socially conservative issues tend to be squishy on fiscally conservative issues.

People who tend to hold the line on socially conservative issues tend to hold the line on fiscally conservative issues.

I don’t know if one drives the other, and in which order, but when someone goes squishy on the social side, I’m pretty sure they are going to go squishy on the fiscal side. It might take a while, but I believe it will happen.

Stegall Tx on November 5, 2010 at 9:18 AM

People who are squishy on socially conservative issues tend to be squishy on fiscally conservative issues.

Stegall Tx on November 5, 2010 at 9:18 AM

The flip side of that is that someone who believes that the government has an official role in controlling people’s private lives, believes in a government that can grow to be sufficiently large to enforce those social values.

dedalus on November 5, 2010 at 9:32 AM

The ‘Teavangelical’ argument is weak tea.

Buy Danish on November 5, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Favorite Bible verse is about how the idle rich shall not eat. Taxes are a good way to keep idle rich from eating. PrezHussein on November 4, 2010 at 11:35 PM

Chapter & verse please.

Akzed on November 5, 2010 at 10:13 AM

52 percent of all people who identified themselves as part of the Tea Party movement are also conservative Evangelicals…

So what do they call the other 48% of people who identify Tea Party?

It’s almost 50/50 all this tells me is that Americans overlap more than our Government likes, they like us divided.

I don’t get how someone takes a faction of the Tea Party and then re dubs it a different make up? What about Conservative fiscal atheist in the Tea Party? Are they Teavangelicals too?

It’s oversimplification so the lazy MSM can use a catch phrase.

Independents swung 23% from Democrat to Republican, from 2008 to 2010, those folks aren’t carrying signs about Conservative social issues, neither are Libertarians, what do all the people, in the Tea Party Movement, have in common – they are fiscally conservative. Period.

Dr Evil on November 5, 2010 at 10:18 AM